KJ-Park, LLC v. Match Group, LLC

Background

This federal diversity action concerns a commercial lease for a three-story building at 2555 Park Boulevard in Palo Alto, California. KJ-Park retained Erik Schoennauer, a land use consultant, as an expert witness concerning land-use entitlement and permitting procedures for the property. Match Group, Inc. and Match Group, LLC moved to exclude Schoennauer’s opinions. They argued primarily that his opinions were improper legal conclusions and that his opinions about KJ-Park’s alleged vested right were irrelevant. They also argued that the opinions should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because their value was substantially outweighed by risks of confusing the issues, wasting time, or presenting cumulative evidence. KJ-Park opposed the motion.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits a qualified expert to give opinion testimony when the testimony will help the factfinder understand evidence or determine a fact in issue, is based on sufficient facts or data, results from reliable principles and methods, and reliably applies those principles and methods to the case. The party offering the expert testimony has the burden of proving that it is admissible. The court explained that expert testimony must be relevant and reliable and that an expert may not tell the factfinder what legal result to reach.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Schoennauer’s opinions largely addressed whether the circumstances created a vested right in the property or supported applying estoppel principles. KJ-Park wanted him to testify about the specific entitlement it received from the City and whether, based on his industry experience, KJ-Park had a right to rely on the City’s actions.

The court held that Schoennauer could not offer opinions about issues of law, including the legal interpretation or significance of documents or events, what the vested-rights doctrine requires, or what the doctrine of estoppel requires. The court therefore excluded his opinions about whether KJ-Park obtained an alleged vested right, whether estoppel principles applied, and the settlement agreement between KJ-Park and the City.

The court also considered whether Schoennauer could testify about general land-use and development industry standards and practices. Although Match Group did not challenge his qualifications to testify about those subjects, the court concluded that such testimony had to concern issues still relevant to the case. Referring to its summary-judgment rulings, the court stated that the vested-rights doctrine and equitable estoppel concerned the legal rights and obligations between KJ-Park and the City, and that KJ-Park could not use those theories to hold Match Group liable under the lease and guaranty. The court was not persuaded that general industry-practice testimony was necessary or relevant to the matters remaining to be tried.

Disposition

The court granted Match Group’s motion to exclude Schoennauer’s opinions. The order ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence; it did not itself enter a judgment resolving the underlying commercial lease dispute.